Election audit procedures usually rely on precinct-based recounts, in which workers manually review all paper ballots from selected polling places, but these recounts can be expensive due to the labor required. This paper proposes an alternative audit strategy that allows machines to perform most of the work. Precincts are recounted using recounting machines, and their output is manually audited using efficient ballot sampling techniques. This strategy can achieve equal or greater confidence than precinct-based auditing at a significantly lower cost while protecting voter privacy better than previous ballot-based auditing methods. We show how to determine which ballots to audit against the recounting machines' records and compare this new approach to precinct-based audits in the context of Virginia's November 2006 election. Far fewer ballots need to be audited by hand using our approach. We also explore extensions to these techniques, such as varying individual ballots' audit probabilities based on the votes they contain, that promise further efficiency gains.
[1]
Ronald L Rivest,et al.
On the notion of ‘software independence’ in voting systems
,
2008,
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.
[2]
Kenneth C. Johnson.
Election Certification by Statistical Audit of Voter-Verified Paper Ballots
,
2004
.
[3]
Roy G. Saltman,et al.
Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying
,
1975
.
[4]
Ronald L. Rivest,et al.
On Auditing Elections When Precincts Have Different Sizes
,
2008,
EVT.
[5]
C. Andrew Neff,et al.
Election Confidence A Comparison of Methodologies and Their Relative Effectiveness at Achieving It
,
2003
.
[6]
D. Dill,et al.
The Role of Dice in Election Audits – Extended Abstract
,
2006
.
[7]
Ariel J. Feldman,et al.
Security Analysis of the Diebold AccuVote-TS Voting Machine
,
2007,
EVT.
[8]
Dan S. Wallach,et al.
Analysis of an electronic voting system
,
2004,
IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, 2004. Proceedings. 2004.